Please Arab Countries DO NOT want a WMD-Free Middle East (Libya, Formerly Iraq, Syria and Iran (Not Arab but still Muslim) show this very well through their own programs and use of such weapons) they simply desire an Jew Free Middle East, the only way that they will achieve this is if Israel is forced to sacrifice its strategic advantage against its Arab enemies while they amass armies and WMD's to use against Israel.

It is a logical conclusion that all that stands between millions of deaths in an all out ME War is the fact that Israel and only Israel holds nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Please Arab Countries DO NOT want a WMD-Free Middle East (Libya, Formerly Iraq, Syria and Iran (Not Arab but still Muslim) show this very well through their own programs and use of such weapons) they simply desire an Jew Free Middle East

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 05:57 AM

A_Wanderer:
I think a WMD-free war between israel and arab-nations who desire a jew free mid-east is better than a war with WMDs where the mid east tries to make the mid-east jew-free.

The mid east radicals who want this jew-free arab know exactly that Europe and the US would support Israel if they attack them - and both, US and Europe have enough WMDs.
So i think this WMD-free zone was a great oportunity for a mid-east deescalation

As I said, as long as the Arabs are not allowed to obtain nuclear weapons (not WMD because they allready have them) there will not be a war, Arab states tried and failed to annihilate Israel in 48, 67 and 73, the only reason that they havent continued to come back and get thrashed is because they know the threat of nuclear annihilation is only minutes away. I have no problem if Israel retains weapons because it does not abuse the technology, it quite literally speaks softly and carries a big stick, this diplomatic use of weapons is a good thing as it ensures a lasting "peace". Deescalation in the Middle East is not a term that goes through the mind of your average terrorist or Arab Leader, they simply see peace plans as ways to weaken Israel and setup the next phase of their war of annihilation. Basically I think that you are only going to see peace in the middle east two ways, first is if all Jews simply die or leave the Middle East or secondly if the indocrination and sponsering of terrorism and hatred within Islamic societies ends and the Muslims produce a generation that genuinely wants to create peace and foster cooperation in the region. Nuclear disarment would only be laying the groundwork for a new holocaust and I simply think that there is too much at stake to loose sight of this.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 05:57 AM

A_Wanderer:
with "there will not be a war" you're obviousely not talking about peace in the mid-east or even peace in palestine, just no war between israel and a neighbour.
And if you think that the knowledge of the A-bomb stoped the arab leaders invading Israel why the heck did the israeli government try to keep their a-bomb secret? Why was the man who (by that logig "brought israel the peace" by telling the world that israel has the a-bomb punished?

The "average terrorist" gives a shit if israel has the a-bomb or not they wouldn't care if israel drops the a-bomb on their country as long as they can take as many israelites with them on the road to death.

If you think a little more long-term you have to have a peace plan because with the current state in the mid east you simply feed the terrorists.

You must remember that the Israelis maintain a policy of strategic ambiguity, that being they neither confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear program. The stuff that they keep secret is the mechanisms of the program e.g. production, how many bombs, what type of arsenel. The policy of strategic ambiguity ensures that nobody messes with the Israelis and if they do they won't know what to expect in return, is it a nuclear bomb or a neutron bomb for instance.

The Israelis do not want the existence of a program secret they just dont want anybody to know how advanced it is, thats why they dont go off and have nuclear tests like your average proud tinpot dicatorship (Pakistan, N-Korea when the time Comes) which just gives away your limits off the bat.

I stand by the combo, If I were given Saudi Royals, Saddam Hussein, Muomar Qadafee I would put their mentality on par with Rantisi, Yassin or Bin Laden.

Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way

Posts: 2,432

Local Time: 05:57 AM

Quote:

they neither confirm nor deny the existence of a nuclear program

So they didn't need the A-bomb for that concept.
If you develop the a-bomb in secret and don't tell anyone about the bomb it's not usefull for deterrence it's just usefull for surprise attacking or for scientific interest.

By the way, neither Pakistan nor Northkorea are "my average proud tinpot dictators"!
Neither I nor my country support these dictators more than ...let's say.. the US President

Strategic Ambiguity is merely a means of bringing peace, if that policy fails it does help to actually have the weapons there to oblitterate your enemies army. Hollow threats would be a very shakey guarantee for peace in the region.

Global Peace through deescalation is a surefire way to be murdered by people who don't want to play that little game, if we back away from from the fight and cease defending the liberal democratic tradition it is only a matter of time until our enemies devise a way to truly obliterate us all, Every Australian, American, Israeli, Indian, Frenchman, German, Thailander etc. is at risk from countries like Iran (Theocratic, support terrorism, bent on the total annihilation of Israel) obtaining nuclear weapons. There will be billions of lives at stake as these regimes gather weapons and eventually something is going to give and we will suffer because of it. I say that we continue to fight terrorism, fight for freedom and stand up to the challenge because our enemies (yes OUR enemies because the Islamist Terrorists see anybody who doesn't conform to their world view as an enemy) sure as hell will never back down or stop trying to kill us because we declare a unilateral peace.

Or another way how do you talk peace with men who do not understand the meaning of the word?

Originally posted by A_Wanderer Global Peace through deescalation is a surefire way to be murdered by people who don't want to play that little game, if we back away from from the fight and cease defending the liberal democratic tradition it is only a matter of time until our enemies devise a way to truly obliterate us all, Every Australian, American, Israeli, Indian, Frenchman, German, Thailander etc. is at risk from countries like Iran (Theocratic, support terrorism, bent on the total annihilation of Israel) obtaining nuclear weapons. There will be billions of lives at stake as these regimes gather weapons and eventually something is going to give and we will suffer because of it. I say that we continue to fight terrorism, fight for freedom and stand up to the challenge because our enemies (yes OUR enemies because the Islamist Terrorists see anybody who doesn't conform to their world view as an enemy) sure as hell will never back down or stop trying to kill us because we declare a unilateral peace.

Well said.

"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy." - George Washington

I'm going to put it this way. I'm not about to say that the Middle East has anything altruistic about them. Do I really believe that Syria has any peaceful motives about it when it advocates a WMD-free Middle East? Of course not. I don't trust any of them. And do I think that Iran is led by good guys? Definitely not.

All I want to say is that we'd better be careful, because Iran is not Iraq, and a war with Iran will not be so swift as it was beating down Iraq's tattered military. Ten years of sanctions certainly beat them down, even if it did nothing to topple Saddam. The fact of the matter is that we are in no position to go after Iran, outside of diplomatic pressure currently, and I certainly support any efforts to make Iran accountable, and these efforts should be stern and relentless. However, when you have an "ally" like Russia feeding Iran's nuclear ambitions, who is more to blame?

Bush isn't that stupid, and the fact that he's been as nice as he has been to both Iran and North Korea means that he certainly isn't in a mood for a "preemptive strike" for a while. And it is true. Nuclear weapons in the hands of Western nations is certainly safer than nuclear weapons in the hands of despots, and "deescalation" is ideal, yes, but it is highly unrealistic. Sad to say, nuclear weaponry has probably been our greatest deterrant to war in all of history; prior to World War II, Europe was pretty much embroiled in nearly incessant conflict.

For now, at least, the diplomatic route will have to do, and if the UN or its agencies get lazy, then we should keep on them to do their job.

Originally posted by melon For now, at least, the diplomatic route will have to do, and if the UN or its agencies get lazy, then we should keep on them to do their job.

I agree

as much fun as it would be to wage war with anyone not playing by the rules it wouldn't really help peace in the long run either

__________________“Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.”
~Frank Zappa

I know it was sarcasm but war is never ever fun. Countries can never just go to war on a whim there must be a large ammount of reason and cause to justify any war. The problem with the UN is that there is no bite to its threats, unless there is a genuine threat to the Iranian leadership there will be no action. The other method to encourage cooperation is the old stick and carrot method of offering them something in return and continuing to push for disarment. Both methods work well in their particular situations, lets look at it this way.

1) Nuclear Proliferation is a threat to every human being.

2) There are some countries that seek these weapons for the wrong reasons (National Pride, Offensive Weapons etc.) and this should be prevented

3) Diplomacy and Multilateralism are the first line of defence against this problem and they must be embraced actively.

4) Diplomacy can be exploited by some countries as a way to delay until they can get the weapons and shift the entire situation to their advantage.

5) When you are faced with such a situation it can be very useful to begin to look at millitary options, not war, simply strikes and make it very clear to the target country that they will not get these weapons either the hard way or the deadly way.

6) Optimally target nation backs down and dismantles program, we give concessions and positive engagement and democratization follows. Failing this and the nation does aquire the weapons then a serious effort at disarment must begin, if that fails and a war is launched against an ally then all bets are off and millions of people will die in a most barbaric and sickening fashion.

I want there to be peace as much as anybody else here but I simply cannot accept that we can have a lasting peace while countries with such destructive rhetoric and records continue to actively seek the means to destroy all of us. Give us a free world and we will give a true peace.